How were ancient Roman citizens identified, and how did officials make sure that their identity wasn't fake? I.e., did they maintain some kind of citizens registry, or did they have some kind of identity papers (analog of modern ID card, driver's license, passport, etc.)?

The first thing that came in my mind was that slaves could have been marked by hot iron (please help I don't know English name for this), but what about foreigners and slaves who were gained freedom?
–
VoitcusJun 12 '13 at 6:53

1

@Voitcus The name for marking with hot irons in English is "branding," the noun is "a brand." A slave would be branded, and receive a brand. They could be identified by the brand on their skin.
–
Samuel RussellJun 12 '13 at 7:26

@SamuelRussell Thank you for this info, my vocabulary gives only "mark" or "stamp" for this and I was sure it is not 100% correct.
–
VoitcusJun 12 '13 at 7:31

Are you asking how Romans identified fellow citizens (why would they want to?) or how Rome identified its citizens (in which case @kubanczyk's answer is probably best).
–
Mark C. WallaceJun 12 '13 at 11:33

4 Answers
4

I don't have a good citation for this - the wikipedia article provided by @kubanczyk is relatively decent, and highlights the role of the censor, which is probably the state oriented solution to the question.

I think the question relies on modern assumptions. Roman citizens would never have needed to prove their identity. Set aside for the moment the urban tribes - they're really just a special case. - and let's set aside women, because that is probably a book length answer.

Every other Roman citizen is bound in a fairly strong social context; they're a member of a family, a tribe, and a gens. Furthermore most Romans were a member of some kind of a patron-client relationship.

Remember also that there are sumptuary laws and customs that determine clothing/costume. Also remember that your legal rights and obligations are based on your social class. For anything other than the lowest social ranks, you are effectively required to participate in the state, and your participation is defined by your social class/citizenship status. Anyone with any ambition is on the cursus honorum, which has the effect of creating a reputation throughout society. If the individual is not actively on the cursus honorum, then they're goign to want to ask a favor or provide a favor to someone who is on the cursus honorum.

Roman society is bound together by a web of relationships, and that web serves as such a strong evidence of citizenship that there is no need for any kind of proof. Anyone who had any doubt about an individual could easily ask someone for a report on their reputation. Anyone who didn't have a good reputation would be unable to act politically, economically, socially, etc.

Update: Mr. Goldberg raises another interesting edge case (apart from women and urban tribes). What about Romans travelling abroad? This is a slightly different set of questions. 1) How do Foreign governments determine whether someone is a Roman citizen? 2) How do Romans determine if someone is a Roman citizen.

In truth, I believe that the answer remains the same. Despite the fact that Roman society invented the rule of law, neither Roman society nor any other society of the period practiced the rule of law. The rights of an individual arise first and foremost from their social network and only secondarily from any legal status. If Egypt (or Armenia, or Persia, or whoever) takes action against an individual, that action is legal unless the individual's network imposes consequences. Mr. Goldberg poses the perfect case - Verres execution of a Roman citizen. If Verres had not pursued justice for his lictor, then nothing would have happened. If Verres had not been over the top, he wouldn't have been brought to trial.

Rome had no police force, no agency charged with enforcing the law (There were specific forced devoted to enforcement of laws against arson, and against treason, but that takes us into book length territory; I'm making a concious generalization). The responsibility for enforcing the law fell on the kin, tribe, gens and patron of the offended individual.

Update 2: Voitcus cites the example of St. Paul who asserts that as a Roman citizen he has the right to be tried in a Roman court (by the Caesar). Paul is an interesting case because he was an itenerant preacher, a member of a persecuted minority. In fact, part of the reason why Christians were persecuted is that they didn't fit neatly within the mold. Paul could be simultaneously a Christian, a Roman citizen, and a Jew. (Discussion of what it means to be simultaneously a Jew and a Christian are out of scope for this question). Based on my memory and quick research, we don't have a great deal of facts concerning Paul's alleged crimes, or his accusers. He seems to have offended the local Jewish population. His offenses against Judaism should have been tried in a court in Jerusalem. Paul asserts his right as a Roman citizen and demands a change of venue to a Roman court in Rome, which we may infer would be a less hostile court.

Unfortunately in order to discuss the issues that Voitcus raises, we'd have to know more. We don't know if Paul's claim was challenged. If it was unchallenged, then Paul never needed to prove his claim. (the local authorities may have felt that getting him out of town would resolve the local problem.) I would assume, based on my study of Roman history, that the local authorities had already consulted Paul's relationships and reputation and knew him to be a citizen.

Very good answer! The emphasis on mentality is important - all too often we unwittingly introduce our assumptions into ancient contexts where did not hold. However, you have not treated a tricky special case: what about Romans abroad? There was a famous case of Verres executing a man who claimed to be a citizen - I wonder what would have been the proceedings there.
–
Felix GoldbergJun 12 '13 at 13:55

@MarkC.Wallace I think you have not provided exact answer for that. St. Paul was Jew. In Acts of Apostles chapter 25, verses 10-12 he states that being Roman citizen he has right to be judged by the Ceasar, and this is law, so he is to be transferred to Rome. How could Roman authorities know he was a citizen and should be treated in special way, although being a Jew? I can't find this in your answer.
–
VoitcusJun 12 '13 at 20:50

The emperor Caesar Nerva Trajan Augustus, son of the deified Nerva,
Germanicus, Dacicus, pontifex maximus, in the seventh year of his
tribunician power, four times Imperator, father of the fatherland,
five times consul,

to the horsemen serving in the four squadrons and eleven cohorts that
are called:

the First Thracian squadron

Tampius' first Pannonian squadron

Sebosius' Gallic squadron

Vettonius' Spanish squadron

the First Spanish cohort

the First Vangionian cohort, 1000 strong

the First Alpine cohort

the First Morinian cohort

the First Cugernian cohort

the First Baetasian cohort

the First Tungrian cohort

the First Thracian cohort

the First Bracarian cohort

the Fourth Lingonian cohort

the Fourth Dalmatian cohort

and are now in Britain under [governor] Lucius Neratius Marcellus, and
have served no less than twenty-five years, and who are mentioned
below,

has granted citizenship,

for themselves, their children, and their descendants, and has granted
the right of marriage with the wives they had when the citizenship was
granted to them, or, in the case of unmarried men, with those they may
afterwards marry (but not more than one wife to one man).

19 January, in the year of the second consulship of Manius Laberius
Maximus and the second consulship of Quintus Glitius Agricola.

[Copy] for Reburrus, son of the Spaniard Severus, decurion in Tampius'
first Pannonian squadron, commanded by Gaius Valerius Celsus.

Copied and compared with the bronze tablet affixed at Rome to the wall
behind the temple dedicated to Minerva by the deified emperor
Augustus.

[Witnesses]
Quintus Pompeius Homerus

Gaius Papus Eusebes

Titus Flavius Secundus

Publius Caulius Vitalis

Gaius Vettienus Modestus

Publius Atinius Hedonicus

Tiberius Claudius Menander

These diplomas certifying citizenship were issued to ordinary people who earned citizenship as well, according to Suetonius:

Most probably, if an official wanted to make sure what is the man's name, they asked them. Honest man has no reason to lie in this case.

The list of citizens was maintained, mainly for tax purposes. It was updated during a census, an event when each father of family had to appear in person and provide all the details under an oath and before witnesses. Wikipedia section.

I think that the modern practice would be considered humiliating by Romans. Innocent, honest citizens of today are obliged to prove to the officials their identity, as if their words were insufficient. The burden of proof should be obviously on the officials, since most people are honest and innocent.

*But I think people from Italian provinces, which weren't Roman citizens at least in the Republic times, tried to gain some citizen's privileges in Rome (such as grain price dotations, etc.). And, I assume, people from Italian provinces weren't easily distinguishable from people from capital city (only by accent, perhaps?) - so it's also interesting how privileges were distributed only among citizens.
–
NikitaBaksalyarJun 12 '13 at 21:05

Although all the above answers are relevant, there is one facet that has been overlooked concerning the provincial citizens. As Roman citizenship was granted to non-Romans in the provinces, the provincials had to reaffirm their citizenship every five years.This was simply a stating of their name and of the type of citizenship they had. (Rome had several levels of citizenship, with each level having different perks).